It is inevitable that America will clash with China again!!! And I hope it will be the final one.
1. Korean war: It is a draw.
2. Vietnam war: China provided weapon, supply, advisors and air defend. Chinese defeated the American using Vietnamese's blood.
3. China and Chinese Filipinos drove American out of the Philippines in 1991.
Right after driving American out of Vietnam in 1973 and Philippines in 1991. China immediately invaded Vietnam and Philippines territories (the two group of islands).
It is obvious that China wants to control the whole of Asia and Australia.

You realize the US left the Philippines because of the extensive damage to Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Force base due to the Mount Pinatubo eruption.
Treaty to extend US military forces didn't pass Philippine Senate in '91 and the US didn't push with the Cold War winding down anyways & the realization there was going to be a strong desire soon for a 'peace dividend' by shuttering bases overseas and domestically.

We don't give a damn what any foreign country thinks. We will build up our military, both offensive and defensive capabilities as much as we can. America can station all the troops and bases all they want in Asia, it won't stop our military modernization. Nothing or nobody will stop the rise of china. We will do what we want, when we want.

We will build our economic, financial, military, political, technological, information and cultural power over the next 50 years.

China must provide a counterbalance to neo-imperialist regimes like the US.
China's defense industry is self-sufficient in most weapons systems, and we can export that to our friends all over the world that are threatened by murderous regimes like the US seeking colonies.

Western analysts, politicians and media can keep crying about china, we don't care what you think. We will continue our military modernization uninterrupted.
The west can take their concerns and shove it up their a$$.

... You do realize that this comment is the reasoning of western countries who will want to wipe China off the map, right? A war between China and America would be no contest. China would be destroyed within months. China may be able to stand up to the US in 20 years or so, but America wouldn't allow it, there'll be war before it gets to that. History dictates it.

China will rise, as you point out. What you fail to realise is that it is *exactly* the attitude you have that is slowly but surely turning the rest of the open minded world against you. We (non-USA) didn't start out not liking China, but you guys are at even more obnoxious and arrogant than those in the United States. Your countrymen may dream of leading the World but from the behaviour we see at the moment, and posts such as yours, insult the established cultures of the World that are able to play nicely together. Despite the flaws of the USA at least it has many attractive qualities to counter-balance it. Unfortunately China is becoming a big bully (which is why its neighbours are turning against it, and it is just too dumb to realise, instead thinking it is all some colonizing plot), without the attractive social freedoms that the USA has. Perhaps China doesn't care about the cares of the West, as your point out, but at the moment the West sees China as a giant, backwards country that is regressing socially and with scant regard for the individual. True or not, the arrogant statements you have made leave a very, very bad impression on those you could have instead persuaded with reason.

Please realize the rest of the World welcomes the *peaceful* rise of China. Please also realize that at the moment you are making the same mistakes as other big countries have, by posting arrogant and provocative statements on the Web. It doesn't make your country or your culture look good at all.

hina does not invent or manufacture their sophisticated weapons. They purchase them from other countries. China is a joke when it comes to waging war on the US. Of course they can hit our army/navy heard. But, how hard will they be able to hit us after 7 years of sustained warfare. We sustain shooting wars for over decades. No problem. The Chinese generals are fooling themselves even more that the Japanese Generals in world war two. Ha Ha Ha ...what a joke. If they attack us for any reason..they don't get to export anything to the world. Obama won't be our president forever, when he leaves office. China's protection will be over.

In weighing his china-policy, containment vs. engagement, the US president decides to consult the omniscient one:

God: Mr. president, China will completely adopt US socio-economic systems...
President: Ah, very encouraging...
God: ...she will be just as rich and powerful...
President: Well, that's only to be expected with our system...
God: ...and she will act the same on the world stage...
President: What!? containment, Containment! CONTAINMENT!!

Japan and S. Korea are in close proximity, but seem to want to carry on a relationship with the US.

The Philippines is also somewhat close (northern Luzon at least), but is having spats with China over claims in the South China Sea.

Then there is Vietnam to the south.

In China's case, its coast line really doesn't face wide open, blue ocean, but instead is roughly enclosed by other countries that probably relish their independence and may be inclined to move closer to the US as a tactic.

As for the US, there are longstanding economic, political and military relationships, as well as formal alliances with Japan and S. Korea.

And there are ties with the Philippines as well as Singapore.

And behind the Philippines, further to the east, is US territory in the way of Guam and North Mariana Islands.

Otherwise, the US probably is not acting unreasonable in desiring freedom of the sea lanes through the South China sea.

American depedence on foreign oil is declining - a function of increasing Canadian tar sands extraction, with whom there are very good relations, and US shale gas production. European Union and China foreign dependence is growing by the day. Both can mitigate this by jockeying over Russia.*

China does find acute annoyance with US ships keeping the peace in the Asian Pacific. There is an issue of pride. This is a country racing towards what it believes is its place in time, wrongfully taken from it. Much conviction for China's motives is derived from China's experience at the hands of foreign powers during the Opium Wars. In about the same time that China had gone into decline and been invaded, the US had been founded and had risen to greater prominence than all previous empires.

Big whoop. Even the boldest projections for US oil supplies have us relying upon at least 35% imported sources to meet future demand & with Mexico declining Canada isn't going to be able to begin to meet that. We will still have to import oil from less-than-desirable countries including Venezuela, Nigeria, and still rely upon the Gulf States to meeting 8-10% of our needs.

That attitude that The Middle Kingdom has a rightful place as the Center of the World is quite misguided. They will be exceedingly disappointed once they realise they will be second to India, and India has much better relationships with the rest of the World than China does (and this is likely to be true in the future due to the Middle Kingdom egotism and corrupt behaviour). This is a shame, China could have risen and been 'cool' about it too - but it seems their inferiority complex has gotten in the way.

See, I find what you said quite interesting. It's an observed attitude -- I had a major altercation with a very angry pro-China commentator here a short while ago. Find it quite alarming, mass-scale entitlement. A while a ago I read of an aged Middle American couple who were quite shocked that the interviewer had implied the US has imperialistic intentions in its actions, that it has an ideology every bit as strong as communism - or stronger since they won. A researcher called it American Innocence - the idea that the majority of the country's population has no real understanding of its action in the world. This idea will become increasingly applicable of China. Where US kids are taught the Star Spangled Banner, Chinese kids learn the horrors of the Opium Wars. The US is the best and China wants to be the best.

India, in my eyes, has traditionally been non-aligned, and non-confrontational -- both in ways that neither China nor, the US for that matter, have been. It does not seem to have any visible intention of dominating the world. Any country that dominates world trade, as the US has, will dominate the world.

India has also had visible indigenous industrial, other corporate champions long before China. Were Brazil has home-grown Embraer in aircraft, India has home-grown Infosys in information technology. Tata.. Of course, China has telecommunications representative in Huawei, which has been far more visible in the developing world than the advanced until very recently.

I suppose if China was a democracy, it would have more visible national champions.

India has been failing to improve - develop - its infrustructure. It will consistently fail to catch-up with China for as long as it takes to facilitate faster, more efficient movement of commerce within its borders.

I really hope this isn't going to generate a massive backlash like my last comments on China, by I see that's quite naïve.

With regards US kids and the Star Spangled Banner, their forefathers and, Chinese kids and Opium Wars, I imagine this is not much changed from French kids learning about the many revolutions in their country, and Israeli kids learning about the Holocaust. Indians learning about the non-violent Gandhi movement, etc, etc. I learnt most of these, but history on the horrors of Apartheid carries prominence in South Africa - obviously.

My goodness. It sounds like we're in for Cold War 2.0, with the main difference between 1.0 and 2.0 being that in this version, we keep doing business with each other while we build up our military forces and spice up our trade negotiations with the occasional scoop of belligerent rhetoric.

Is it that the US simply does not know how to approach the world except through military power, or is it inevitable that whenever there are two strong countries competing for resources, customers, and hegemony, they must eventually come to blows?

We obviously don't need ICBMs for a US-China conflict to be mutual assured destruction. Economic destruction is mutually assured no matter what military weapons are used. So, war is unthinkable not just to the pacifists but to the traders and financiers. That being the case, the inevitable military buildup on both sides is a sad, sad, waste of resources that could be used so much better elsewhere.

I meant mutually hostile ones. US and UK just finished fighting a war as allies, and are both democracies. China is a one-party dictatorship with no concept of freedom of expression. As far as your average American is concerned, the Chinese may as well be from Mars. And vice versa.

No. It is not cold war 2.0. The fact is that the western countries' economic situation is very bad and a good article/advertisement by The Economist and other prominent western newspapers and magazine may boost the sale of fighter planes and tanks and destroyers made by the US, UK, France and Germany to other countries. Just ask these newspapers and magazines how much they have charged the arms manufacturers in the US, UK, France and Germany.

Yes. Ask yourself why Taiwan would persistently beg the US for arms sales (while the US sits on the fence, trying to also balance economic ties with China). Simple, the Taiwanese waste their tax money on weapons because they want to determine their own future. They avoid provoking China, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean the Taiwanese desire re-unification under Beijing's terms.

nb. For those who think Taiwan's around 100 km proximity to China mean it is inevitable that Taiwan must join China then I suggest you consider Europe where countries that touch physically still have no desire to unite politically. The longer Taiwan is apart from China (and the stranger Beijing's behaviour is) it is more likely that Taiwan would drop the 'One China' fiction rather than be absorbed. Hong Kong's path cannot be particularly inspiring for the Taiwanese.

Actually, Hong Kong has boomed even more after 1997. If you are talking about mainland immigration, then that is certainly an issue. Otherwise, Beijing has not really messed w/ Hong Kong's institutions except when it comes to selecting the Chief Executive and members of Legco.

The article says, inter alia: "Its armed forces have had no real combat experience for more than 30 years". Did it ever occur to the authors that China might be LOOKING for that experience? And that THAT is why we should be alarmed?

Meh. Capalist countries should have an advantage in military spending. Go ask Russia (a country not short on resources). And then go ask China in 20 years. Ask them how well they are doing without a free market.
That is, if they aren't a free-market in 20 years.... And if China is a free-market, with an open press and freedom of speach, then the essential decency and reasoning of human nature should have the advantage over communist cronies.

Oh, I wish it were that simple. But no, there seems to be quite a shortage of this "essential decency and reasoning of human nature", even among countries that have been free-market and capitalist for centuries. How else can we explain the rise of Hitler in a democratic Weimar Republic? Or the (re?)-election of George W. Bush after he slaughtered thousands of innocent Iraqis with an ill-advised, needless and unjust war?

Does Russia have an f-22 or f-35? Could Russia keep pace with American military spending? Are state capatilst economies efficent? Do lots of poor people create unrest? Will China ever be able to export anything of its own desgin?

I don't think Syllogizer engaged in an ad hominem attack; the crux of his argument seems to be that countries that otherwise embrace the notions of essential decency and reasoning of human nature can still descend into fascism or otherwise make decisions that laud violence and militarism.

As for Russian or Chinese F-22s or F-35s; they are not necessary. All that is needed on their part are air defense systems capable of finding, fixing, and destroying said aircraft. G2A or A2A missiles may be more than adequate to taking out the aircraft; all that is necessary is avionics and guidance capable of overcoming the ECM and stealth.

I guess that will exclude US of A then as a country with essential decency and reasoning of human nature. I can't find anything that's decent and human of a country that's found by slaughtering and occupying lands that belong to the natives of North America. A country that, as of 60 years ago, still practicing profound racism with segregation and discrimination all around. Yes it had repented and redressed some of the injustices. But who know when the wind blow the other way, it will not go back to its barbaric root because it cannot stand to lose and accept its perpetual decline.

as per Iraq. I blame lack of deliberation in going in (although Hussein did admitt he wanted us to think he had WMDs). I blame mismangement and Iran for what happened afterwards. But... that doesnt change the widom in ad hominine / the essential decency of man when faced with accurate facts.

Your conclusion would leave a reader with this thought. Either under your definition of "a free-market, with an open press and freedom of speach" America & Britain not free economies with an open press since "essential decency and the reasoning of human nature" fail to prevail or more likely you have no idea of what you speak and just blurt out the Free market is good socialism is bad statement at random points.

"I can't find anything that's decent and human of a country that's found by slaughtering and occupying lands that belong to the natives of North America"

Seems a bit off topic, and a historical stretch. We could go furher back - like how do you think southern China, below the Yangtze became Chinese from the Han Dynasty onwards?

Otherwise, land purchases were transacted between the American government and Indians throughout the 19th centuries. Beforehand, in the 17th and 18th centuries, similar transactions took place between settlers and Indians prior to independence (see Manhattan Island, and many towns in the north east).

And resettlement was practiced controversially in the US in the 1830s (that is how you got the Indian territories in Oklahoma).

developing? working? vs. produced. Also, i believe China has a stealth plane suspiciously like the US. And, I believe India would love the F-22 (probably any country would) but its not for sale. Prob because its that good. Ive looked at the new Russian Mig. Its like the old one. But faster. My response to that: F-18

Michael. The year is 2012. Here and Now. The US is very open press. And I hope China will be one day too. As the world continues to "flatten", we are able to gather more accurate facts. And, at bottom, most people will choose peace over war, in my belief. You might believe otherwise, however. And thats fine. Most of what we say is speculation anyways. So I respect that.

You might be correct to say that America & Britain are not entirely free or that they don't have an open press. But if you think that flatting the world and haveing free speach and open presses are worse than... well... your point... ah, yes... your point is an ad hominen conclusory assault on my post.

Joe. I relent to your comment. Syllogizer did not exactly use an adhominen attack on the essential decency and reasoning of man. (I type most of these things at work while reading books and developing oil fields in the Gulf)

As for air-craft carriers... I think the F-22 can fly from land locations as well.

I wish to clarify that the crux of my argument is that humans, when faced with accurate facts (and that probably involves free speach and open press) should be able to resolve their differences peacfully. The world keeps "flattening"...

Seems like both planes are in the test stage now - the Sukhoi PAK FA and the Chengdu J-20.

But you never know what could crop up.

As for the second post, I think big power military conflict is very unappealing to leadership groups/elites of countries.

I have said this before, for one, nuclear weapons give pause. Then add in the huge costs and risks associated with outright military conflict between great powers. Then add in the potential for escalation and things getting really out of control, driving costs in lives, resources and money ever higher.

So I think there may be tension and quarrels, but I don't expect a war between great powers in the future.

you seem to be quite knowledgable about military technology. So here's my question: if stealth technology is the reduction, not elimination, of radar cross section to the size of small birds, couldn't one be able to detect stealth by using doppler technology to find birds that fly at 500 miles per hour or faster? Seems to me it's a nearly trivial exercise -- the only probable obstacle is the need for a good amount of computing power. Of course using look-down radars (AWACS) and multisensor fusion (infrared signature + Doppler) it could be even easier to detect.

There's no reason why China shouldn't build up the military. America's constantly doing war games with neighboring countries. How would the US like it if China launches war games with Canada, Mexico or Latin America near it's shores. That would probably be the start of WW III...
Diplomacy is a good suggestion by the TE...but that's not the American politics way, otherwise why would they send air craft carriers and do war games at the South China sea. Actions, not words please.
America have far less reason to build up its military, or keep the current size. Maybe if it re-sizes (if congress, the president and Republicans) allow it...yeah, not likely. Then it would seem like less of a threat, and a better relationship could be formed between the two countries.

But personally...ummmm...I don't think the Military Industrial Complex will die out soon...at least not within this decade.

Some of the countries are formal, longstanding US allies, like Japan and S. Korea. Now those two countries also have fears over N. Korea, which I feel are justifiable in my personal opinion, and one legitimate reason for the war games.

Personally I think the budget for the US military should be paired back to a more manageable scope. I think we need to take stock of strategy, procurement processes, realistic/sustainable force levels, etc.

Ummm...just look at the US's war records in the last 30 years. If China did that. China = ultimate threat or something by the white house... And well, the US really doesn't hold back, military wise =.="

Japan may have been a spoil of war, but has remained a close ally, especially since the 1980s when it could have asserted much greater independence (a la A Japan that Could Say No).

Not sure S. Korea was such a spoil of war. The US Army quickly tired of the haphazard occupation of the country - was keen to wash its hands of it in 1949 when most forces left - Only a Military Advisory Group was left behind (KMAG, which in the summer of 1950, was jokingly called Kiss My A-- Goodbye).

N. Korea's invasion of the south brought the Americans back in the following summer.

Regardless, you have two huge countries that achieved much in developing their societies, economies and political systems, over a 60 year period of time, and have chosen to retain close ties with the US.

Well, we did not simply "put up and shut up", though our response was much more restrained than China's. We did use that presence as one of many excuses for building up our nuclear missile capabilities. But it was certainly not seen as a cause for war, despite Loyd's suggestion.

We even offered to launch a rescue mission to save one of those Soviet subs when their reactor overheated. But predictably, the Soviets turned the offer down, facing more casualties instead as they waited for their own rescue.

Stationing the ballistic missile submarines so close to the US was actually a response to information gained from the Walker spy ring (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker). The Soviets discovered that the US navy could track their ballistic missile submarines due to propeller cavitation. That meant we were following their submarines in peacetime and would sink them as soon as war broke out (before they had time to launch their missiles). The Soviet response was to do the best they could with what they had, while try to redesign their propellers so that they produced less cavitation. They decided to put their oldest and noisiest subs close to the US where they could launch immediately if war broke out, since they would already be in range. The newer and quieter subs were kept close to home, where they could be defended by ships and aircraft. But it was a desperate attempt to make the best out of a bad situation. Submarines aren't very useful if the enemy knows where they are.

So the fact that the Soviets stationed ballistic missile submarines off the coast of the US isn't very relevant to a discussion about China. Surveillance outside of the target country's airspace or territorial waters is perfectly legal and doesn't come close to genuine provocation. It may drive the Chinese crazy and lead to their harassing ships and aircraft that do it, but the best response would be to simply reciprocate. The problem is that the Chinese would have great difficulty in performing similar surveillance operations off the US coast. But they're probably already engaged in surveillance of US bases in Okinawa, Guam, etc.

You don't know much about US submarine doctrine in the Atlantic during the Cold War. Besides SOSUS, the US had a strict policy on limiting any Soviet nuclear missile boat within 200 miles of the continental US.

Basically as soon as a Soviet boat went through the GIUK gap, it was assigned a US attack submarine to shadow it. The big fear always among US nuclear war gamers was Soviet subs sitting under the Arctic ice around Greenland.

I wasn't commenting on US doctrine. I was pointing out the presence of Soviet submarines off the east coast, and referenced an incident that transpired off of Bermuda.

Otherwise, you had literature like "Soviet Power" painting all sorts of shadings representing Soviet sub operations (the chart "Soviet Global Power Projection" was a good one) that I liberally view as off the American coasts.

The point was raised to demonstrate that:
1) An adversary had been in America's neighborhood before
2) Didn't lead to a hot crisis

Am aware of SOSUS and past efforts to shadow and track Soviet submarines. Also aware of the fun and games that went on in the Arctic. As well as recalled the alleged improvements that Tooshiba and possibly others helped the Soviets acquire in making quieter propellers (through machinery sales) back in early 1980s.

I have heard about some unverified news that a couple of years ago, the Chinese have taken over some old abandoned Soviet listening stations in Cuba for SIGINT purposes against the lower 48 states. Wonder if that is true?

It seems to me that the old world order of "Nation-States" will begin to disapear and the world will revert back to empires or territories. The US will not be able to "gaurantee" anything to China's neigbors soon. Sometimes I wonder just how valid our gaurantee's are to those nations today. As demand for energy sources continues to rise all around the world, smaller countries will unfortunately be marginalised and forced to depend on their regional powerhouse for assistance, giving that regional powerhouse defacto power over its smaller neigbors.

Let's face it, would 200 extra marines in Australia really make a difference if China were to anex Taiwan tomorrow? We cannot go to war with them, we cannot give them crippling sanctions as we depend on the products they export to us, so really, what would we do? What exactly is our "gaurantee" based off of?

Why fear this change? The Buddha said that all things are impermanent. Borders and nation-states are about as intangible and artificial as human creations get, so it is only natural for them to change and evolve with the passage of time.

Did I suggest any nation-state to follow the Buddha's teachings? I was merely making an observation. And as far as I know, other animals don't give a diddly about borders. They go where they like. Shows you how artificial many of them actually are.

I see your point about Buddha, and it's a good one. You're right things must evlove, but on their own. Not with a regional superpower holding a gun to your back and keeping you in poverty so that your leaders can depend on them and in return for some kick-downs you serve loyally to them. That is what happens when the world returns to the old ways of empires or territories, not to say it ever really changed. However, the way it is today, with nation-states, gives smaller countries better hope. Hope is just as intangible as those borders we draw today, but it's much better than what we're heading for if the superpowers of the world continue on their path.

when the US has been holding joint exercises with China's neighbors with saber rattling and bullying, almost continuously, right in front of China's shores;

when China has zero carrier battle group to park at its driveway and the US has 10 nuclear super carrier battle groups plying waters at China’s door step and back waters;

when every member of BRIC has a carrier except China, even neighbor Thailand has got one;

when China has zero protection of its vital sea lanes with zero foreign base (the US has over 800 foreign bases);

when China is bombarded by incessant filing at WTO and bulling protectionist rhetoric and intimidation in the US;

when China is surrounded by "containment" in every which way and every step of way, by US vassal Japan and semi vassal S. Korea from the east, semi-something Philippines and others like India from the south, with Australia joining the fray...;

And you call all this China threatening? Not US threatening?

And just when China is about to emerge out from picking up its pieces of lives and to shaking off humiliation and near total devastation of war ravaged livelihoods by the Japanese aggression, and self inflicted wounds of cultural revolution ;

then comes along the Economist seeing fit to call China “the pace and nature of its military modernization inevitably cause alarm”?

It is understandable that the West does not want to have a rising China, but why bother with such propaganda of fear? Who is kidding whom? And Who is threatening whom?

As the Economist admits, “China is far less formidable than hawks on both sides claim”. As such there’s absolutely no need for China to keep emphasizing the idea of a peaceful rise either, because there ain’t no other ways for China, except to rise peacefully. And peacefully it will rise.

China is a dictatorship. That is all it takes to raise alarm in the west. Get yourself an accountable leadership that respect the rights of your own citizens, and we would feel more confident that you will respect ours, too.

Yeah, getting accountable leadership would be great, except it takes time (unless it tickles your fancy to see China collapse into chaos a la Russia in the 90s). Democracy is great on paper, but is hard to implement. When Sun Yat-Sen became the president of the ROC after the 1911 revolution, common people on the street thought that he was another emperor. They had no inkling of what democracy was. Of course, things are not so extreme today, but implementing democracy takes time. That is why democratic elections (albeit ones w/ a heavy dose of state control) happen in villages for village heads. This is to instill a sense of democracy and the responsibilities coming with it in the people. It also allows the creation of institutions, starting from an embryonic state, that are vital for a true, not flawed, democracy to flourish down the line. Otherwise, you get flawed democracies like those seen in Africa or Russia.

Check out the recent history of the other East Asian US "semi-vassals" and "vassals". Most, of them (except for maybe Japan) were ruled by strongmen and authoritarian leaders, albeit they weren't communists. Then, when they have developed to a certain point (a high enough GDP per capita), they transitioned to a democracy. I believe that China will follow the same course, perhaps w/ a few modifications and small bumps.

I think you are missing the point here. What you describe is mostly true TODAY. But the article is talking about the future, a few decades from now. It points out that the relative military strength will be closer, that the military spending of China will eventually grow near US, that China will force US carrier groups further and further out. These are real and serious concerns for US and its allies if they hope to maintain the current military advantage.

We can confidently predict that US and China will not be at war in near future. China is not about to invade anyone, and US has no interest in warring with China. But there is no guarantee of peace in the long run. As China become more powerful, it will also be more likely to assert its interest, which may well be in conflict with US. The chance of conflict will increase.

In human history, two powerful, neighbouring countries never co-exist peacefully for long. We all hope that US and China will be peaceful for many years to come. But there is no guarantee of that.

I am afraid you are totally blind about Democracy, which is far from its concept in Politics. Democracy is kind of life methodology adopted in every aspect of life, such as economy or education. Politics shall, and will, be the last area to adopt democracy based on history of past centuries.

Only noble people with money could go to Oxbridge, but later Sorbonne opened its door freely to every single person.
Only charted companies could conduct business under the rule of king of England, but later Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen granted every single person her/his right legally.
...
That's the spirit of democracy.

China goes back to planned economy in recent years.
Almost all the major industries are controlled by Giant Enterprise under absolute ownership and direction of the state.
Prices are controlled by the government. P&G and Unilever can not ever rise prices of their product with the increased price of labour force and material cost. Government Hearings vetoed their request.

The real estate or housing or mortgage in major cities is under government rationing, e.g. one per core family with local citizenship.

Based on that, I see no change in predictable future.
You ask for more time, but I see to change or progress on going currently.

It’s not a matter of missing point of future, it’s a matter about the present, the now.

People can predict and speculate future to one’s heart’s content, but the future is not ours to see---(I mean who’d have thought China is today America’s biggest debt holder?)

Even so and for the “future business”, shouldn’t the burden of proof be residing on the side of stronger? Shouldn’t the West, being the absolutely stronger party, be acting as example of leadership being non-aggressive and no-bullying, for a change?

So it’s really not about "threats" but about the interest and vested interest, isn’t it?

That being the case, why beating around the bushes with smears of threat or phobia? Why not just come out and say it (the interest), instead of sending bit part players to do the pity paraphernalia stuff.

Correct. I believe one of the cardinal values of the rule of law (so beloved by the "West") is that nobody is above the law, and everybody is equal before it. Of course, China still needs to work at it a bit more before it can achieve something close to that ideal (it is an ideal since even supposedly free and open societies like the US deal w/ issues of unequal treatment in legal contexts, a mundane example being that sometimes, Caucasians are more likely to receive warnings at a traffic stop, while African-Americans are more likely to get ticketed).

China is still an authoritarian regime, and most of East Asia (barring only North Korea) is uneasy that it will assert its power abroad in an imperial way. While this does relate to US geopolitical interests (the US does not want the straits of Malacca cordoned off) it also relates to the maintenance of international law. China's claim on a 200 mile radius of ocean as "blue national soil" [to quote the article above] flies in the face of international law, which recognizes 12 miles of national waters for all countries (US included). There is nothing imperialistic or threatening about standing by the accords of international law.

“That is why democratic elections (albeit ones w/ a heavy dose of state control) happen in villages for village heads. ”
above is the only solid fact to back your assumption. democratic election with a heavy dose of state control is not democratic at all. And most educated people living in cities not granted this election rights makes the election in the village among most uneducated people a total fuss.
And remember, a murderer saving a rabbit does not make that person not a murderer, and that shows no sign that person will be safe to others around.
If the gov wants progress, introduce that election in cities. Otherwise I won't buy the story.

Other nations you mentioned in Asia are truly half-empty half-full, which depends on the interpretation. But the glass for China is half-empty half covered. You can't simply assume its half-full with no solid facts just following other glasses.

I say in other areas except Politics, Democracy is empty.
You say the glass of China is half-full, while I do not see any area where the progress marching to Democracy is predictable.

Don't say its half-full without facts. I see some parts are covered heavily, but not full.

Your mistake is to assume that the march to democracy is predictable, smooth, and always the same everywhere. That is simply not true, and I actually believe that each country that doesn't already have some sort of representative government will find its own way to it. Of course, there would be similarities, but they would not be exact carbon copies of each other. It is actually this belief that one size fits all, that one protocol for attaining democracy is suitable for all countries, that caused flawed, dysfunctional democracies to arise in places like Africa, Russia, SE Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. The really lucky ones eventually found their way to true, fair, and open representative government. The okay ones became authoritarian states, sometimes w/ a technocratic ruler who developed the economy, eventually allowing a transition to true democracy. The unlucky ones ended up being ruled often by corrupt kleptocracies, and many of them slid into anarchy and civil war. One prominent example is Somalia. Another one is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, though peace has finally returned to a large part of the country.

I did not say democracy is predictable, smooth, and always the same everywhere, did I? If I did, please quote.
I agree those countries will eventually find some sort of representative government, but what matters much is when? In 100, 200, or 300 years? Time matters most. Saying that is like saying we will eventually cure cancer and HIV, and send astronauts to Mars. It's totally meaningless to people living in current decade.

What I mean is that Why you say, and you see, the glass is half-full? The glass with water does not mean it is half-full.
I give you solid facts saying why it is half-empty. But you do not give solid facts saying why the other covered half is full.

You are always taking about the future on assumptions without solid facts. But you are blind to current signs and facts.

You say democracy is flawed, dysfunctional, in SE Asia. Please explain the case in Malaysia and Singapore with solid facts.
You say there are three ways, luck one, okay one, and unlucky one. Which one will China go? If you do not answer this question, then your three way theory is totally meaningless.
If you answer it, please answer it with solid facts, otherwise your answer is also meaningless.

I say predictable referring to the future. An unpredictable future is meaningless to present for what we say and what we assume is meaningless.

You say and assume a lot. Do you have fact to back your assumption？ If not, how do we know it's true, or it will happen? If we do not know it will happen, or what will happen, what is the meaning that we discuss it here?

Without facts, what you talk about the future way of China is totally meaningless, for we do not know that will happen.

I am not saying what you assume for the future of China is wrong, but meaningless.

Um. What concerns the West is the fact that from 2001 to 2010 China has increased defence spending from 14 billion to around 100 billion. That is a massive increase and it is obvious that China has a reason for doing this. Since the Chinese government is well known for its lack of transparency and there have been recent incidents where Chinese vessels have been very aggressive to their neighbours (ramming them in many cases) then yes, this does give the rest of the World food for thought. If China had raised its military spending and been nice to its neighbours there wouldn't be the same reaction. At the moment China is starting to show it wants to be as much of a bully as the US or Russia. This is not good.

nkab,
I read both your comments - the one @April 4th, 19:45 and the one replying to NovemberSnow. I just want to register with you how strongly I agree with you. November has a point, but the provocative tone of the TE article is unnecessary. There is much xenophobia going on in the West about China. Articles such as this one reinforces the phobia. I am disappointed by this TE article. Perhaps its goal is to cater to the phobia and sell more paper. I don't know. I am often baffled by one fact I have observed as a Chinese person who was educated in America. And that fact is how little America knows about China and how much more China knows about America. Ignorance is never the basis for strength. Anyway, thank you for writing the post. - Ashbird

You sound like one of many rednecks 'who likes to give a guy a bad name and hang him'. You are from the era of 'the only good Indian is a dead one'; 'the only nigger you want to see is one hanging from a tree'.

If the US government is so respectful of its citizens how is that a Pew survey showed that only 30% of its citizens support the government whereas the same survey indicated that more than 80% of Chinese are happy with their government. Are you going to say that the Chinese are too stupid to know what's good for them?

The US government is a dysfunctional one in gridlock controlled by Jewish and other capitalist oligarchs. Only stupid Americans believe that their government care a damn about them or their welfare or that they have a real voice. Even your media is Jew and Oligarch controlled. The fact that almost 50 million Americans are now at or below the poverty line is indicative of your government's indifference. Respect for your citizens indeed; get your house in order mate before telling your neighbours about theirs!

Guys like you can kill all the Martin Luther Kings in the world but when it comes to a real fight you always leave with a tail between your legs. You lost in Korea, you lost in Vietnam and now you lost in Iraq and Afhanistan. All your mighty military equpiment didn't do a damn for you! You are only good at killing defenceless Cambodians, Iraqis South Americans and others. Now you are cowardly hiding behind drones, killing people at will. Kidnapping, torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents is not enough for your blood thirst!

Mate, you won't have to wait too long for some other peoples' drones to whistle down your backyard.

Hi Mate,
You read a lot into my short comment.
Too many Fosters at a late Easter night?
Your rant is not really worthy an answer, but since I am on a holiday break I will spend some minutes on you.
First, read some of my other comments in TE, and see how "Redneck" I really am.
FYI, I am not American at all. Far from that.
But I do keep a perspective on things. There are some good guys in the world, but unfortunately those are mostly small and weak. And there are some less good guys, who despite everything have a record of protecting their friends. And then there are the abysmal ones, who sweettalk you until they have the power over you. You only need to look at how they treat those who are already in their power to guess who I mean.
So, the CPC regime has 80% approval rating? Sure, there are a lot of independent polling institutes in China, yes?
If any governement or politician, anywhere in the world, reaches an approval rating of more than 60% there is serious reason for concern. I would start voting against him even if he were Jesus reincaranated.
And drop that Aussie BS. You don't fool anybody. Go pick up your 50 cents now.

The whole Tibet thing is an internal issue. Even the Indians are getting tired of some of the behavior conducted by the DL and TGIE on their territory. If other countries want to meddle in it, be my guest, but do so at their own peril.

Things are pretty chummy between China and Taiwan. Look up ECFA. Though New Conservative may disagree, when I was in China last summer, I had some delicious mangosteens grown in Taiwan that were imported cheaply to the mainland. It also helps that China and Taiwan has identical claims over the Paracels and Spratlys. Taiwan controls Itu Aba, the biggest island in the Spratlys, and one with an airstrip which they use mostly for military purposes. You should see the outpouring of support Chinese nationalists give to Taiwan for their control of Itu Aba on youtube.

By the way, no borders are permanent. I subscribe to a good amount of Buddhist philosophy (though not the whole package), and one thing that has always rang true to me is impermanence. Borders are human creations. Other animals don't see them, and don't care much for them even if they are aware of them in some way. Of course, I'm not advocating for war or irredentism, but to expect borders to remain static for eternity is a fanciful idea at most.

By the way, many Chinese nationalists these days want China to be tougher on Russia and take back what they call "Outer Manchuria" (basically, Amur Oblast, Khabarovsk, and Primorye). They trashed the CCP and Chinese government for only taking back a couple of alluvial islands. Be glad that China is not a democracy and have these people voted into office. Otherwise, this would have never been settled the way it has been.

If you don't consider giving away a few islands as settled, then what do you consider settled? Status quo? China forfeiting land? Russia agreed to this voluntarily. Not a shot was fired, no threats were made (as far as we know), and no swords (or bayonets rather) were waved during the entire negotiation process. Unless you are a Russian nationalist angry about how the border was settled, then I fail to understand why a mutual agreement between two sovereign nations to settle the border between them can be considered an issue.

Nope, it is settled. All borders were settled with the transfer ceremony in 2008. Do your research. Only Taiwan (as the ROC) claims that it is not settled, but then that is just rhetoric without much substance nowadays anyways.

"The Tibet thing"... Though a lot of us are very unhappy with China's choices of how to govern Tibet, very, VERY few now contest China's claim that Tibet is their territory. Even if the invasion of Tibet back in the 50s was an evil thing, they have now held the territory for long enough that international law recognizes their right to it.

This is because the arms industry in the US has already twisted the arms of President Obama in the sale of almost 8 billion dollars of military hardware. So it is unlikely that the US will be able to sell more weapons to Taiwan without angering Mainland China accompanied by trade sanctions. We must not forget that Mainland China is after all one of the main clients of US products and trade sanctions would cause a second if not a third dip in the ocean of depression.
So now the US and its satellites (UK, France and Germany) are targetting other countries that have money but have not yet made their purchases of fighter planes and tanks and bazookas. So the arms industry in these countries have hired the services of several magazines and newspapers to write and publish such articles. In fact, the arms industry in these countries intend to offer a very high prize for the "best" article on this matter.

I never said that things weren't chummy between Taiwan and the mainland, though I still contend that the fruit was from Thailand.

Taiwan is forbidden by the 1992 consensus from relinquishing the ROC's old claims, as that could be seen as a step towards independence. If they were to do so, China is legally obligated to invade. I suspect Taiwanese people could care less about the South China sea.

The invasion, if you prefer to call it as such (I personally prefer recovery, since it was controlled by the Qing Dynasty for a few centuries up until 1911-1912, and PRC, being legal successor of ROC who succeeded the Qing, is reestablishing its sovereignty over it), had its good and bad. What is really lacking is an objective account of what really happened, backed up by solid sources and exhaustive research. In this respect, I think China should open its archives and allows historians and researchers to freely access Tibet and interview people there. This way, we can get a good factual account of the whole thing and leave a good historical record for posterity.

Then what is legal? The US taking Native American land and herding them onto reservations is fair and fully legal, because the US is rich and powerful, and international institutions accord it a lot of leeway (an understatement at best)? So, just because something occurred after a magical date (1914, 1918, 1945, whatever), it is illegal due to some unspoken convention?

"If your enemy is secure at all points, BE PREPARED: if he is superior, EVADE him (don't confont directly); if angry, IRRITATE him... If his forces are unite, DIVIDE them... APPEAR where you're not expected..." -Sun Tzu, 'The Art of War' (written a few centuries before Machiavelli)... BTW: Any similarity with certain political events overseas, somewhere in South-Eastern-Pacific currently, is (NOT) merely a coincidence.

Oh, I think it's NO SECRET those principles can be applied by ANYONE, either in the fields of land military, or maritime warfare, or aerial warfare, or diplomacy, or politics, or business, or law-making, or negotiations, etc... You call it. Even an apprentice of lawyer can apply those principles when causing the envy of his bosses... Won't you agree? ;)